lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sun, 12 Feb 2017 19:56:41 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Bhumika Goyal <bhumirks@...il.com>
cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource: add __ro_after_init to cyclecounter

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017, Bhumika Goyal wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Ard Biesheuvel
> <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
> > On 11 February 2017 at 19:20, Bhumika Goyal <bhumirks@...il.com> wrote:
> >> The object cyclecounter of type cyclecounter is not getting modified
> >> after getting initialized by arch_counter_register. Apart from
> >> initialization in arch_counter_register it is also passed as an argument
> >> to the function timecounter_init but this argument is of type const.
> >> Therefore, add __ro_after_init to its declaration.
> >>
> >
> > I think adding __ro_after_init is fine if this struct is never
> > modified after init. But the reference in the commit log to the
> > constness of the timecounter_init() argument  makes no sense: that
> > only means timecounter_init() will not modify the object, which allows
> > pointers to const objects to be passed to it as well. The opposite is
> > not true, though: there is no requirement whatsoever that objects
> > passed into const pointer arguments should be const themselves.
> >
> >
> 
> Yes, true. I will change the commit log and send a v2. Thanks for explaining.

I've applied it already and fixed up the subject/changelog. You should have
mail from tip-bot ...

Powered by blists - more mailing lists